Ok, I get it. Some of us are a tad bit sensitive about the east coast bias thing. And anyone who says it doesn't exists probably also believes Dan McGuire was our greatest qb ever. But why do so many of us get their panties in a bunch over it?

It's nothing personal. They are just doing the wise thing for their shareholders and maximizing their profits. Media exists to make money. Media makes money by selling advertising. You sell more advertising by having a larger viewership. You have a large viewership by showing more people what they want to see/hear. 3/4 of the entire US population lives on the East Coast. Soooo, you think they want to hear about the up and coming Seahawks or how Sanchez's ex gf may not be rumored to be dating Tebow's ex's brother's in law's cousin? Just saying.

Bottom line is, if you want to stay in business in the National sports world you had better be giving the east coast what the east coast wants to hear. If you want the National media to constantly talk about your team regardless of anything they've done to earn it. Just choose an east coast team to root for--like Cleveland---oh wait...

Hate it all you want, but if you owned a national media outlet and did anything different you would losing a ton of money. No conspiracy. Just Benjamin's.

I dunno, I stopped caring about it 15 years ago. My longest childhood friend has been living on the east coast for ten years or so, and the attitude just blows him away. The average New Yorker doesn't even acknowledge that the west coast exists. It is like we aren't a part of the same country. I guarantee you 75% of say Bills fans out there have never heard of Richard Sherman. Or Earl Thomas. Even if ESPN played Richard Sherman highlights for 15 minutes every night for six months, NYers would just tune it out. It isn't relevant to their lives.

I have no problem with media bias in terms of amount of coverage, that just makes business sense. I do have a problem with pure laziness when it comes to discussing the Seahawks. For instance, looking at Wilson getting 196 yards passing and concluding he had a bad or mediocre day, when he really had 3 passing TDs and 0 ints to go with those 196 yards.

I will speak for the east coast few and say that the east coast bias against the Seahawks is not unanimous. I feel your guys pain, I would love to see the Seahawks get some love but fact is that's just not going to happen when you have the NFC East which seems to get the most attention in my opinion. The fact that all we hear about is Eli having a tired arm, Cowboys up and down, Eagles debacle with Reid, and the Redskins with Griffin III gets quite old. Not to mention the nauseating nonsense with how the Jets treat Tebow, there's just no winning against that kind of publicity/controversy.

It's not that I don't get the dollar and cents angle, I do. I get that.

What keeps my fire burning is the SMUG righteousness in the way they not only consciously dismiss the Seahawks but take unprofessional pot shots at us. This has gone on for DECADES and that is what pisses me off when I think about "East Coast Bias." It's acceptable and expected by their peers (from analysts to former players turned analysts) and it's disgusting.

"We don't even need your stupid a-- that much. We can win Super Bowls with retired Kerry f------- Collins right now, and you want to be the highest paid player of all-time? F--- you." - Tical21 to Russell Wilson, 6/30/15

Aros wrote:It's not that I don't get the dollar and cents angle, I do. I get that.

if its all about dollars and cents (network league revenue) how does one explain the 49ers?

SF is about the same size as Seattle so one has to believe their TV ratings are about the same, right?

lets move on to success over the last decade, Seattle obviously wins that so as far as popularity i concerned Seattle should win that hands down

its ludicrous to say the networks base exposure using popularity or success that in turn is based ratings... the networks CREATE the popularity, and the league does all it can to create success, 'cmon man, mid season break the niners get 23 days off with one game in between? is it any wonder they were a lot stronger than the bears? after they played the hawks they get 11 days off then play the cards, another 12 days off then play the rams, then 8 days off to play the bears, scheduling coincidence? the niners didn't play a divisional team until week 8?

if the networks and the league wanted to increase Seattle's ratings they could, in the same manner they are increasing the popularity of the niners, by INCREASING EXPOSURE and sensationalizing (all that hype you hear every time they play), 2 Monday night games, 2 Sunday night games and 1 Thursday night game? seems they are in the process of increasing the niners ratings to me.

and why? because over the last 9 years they made the playoffs once? remember that 13-3 came out of so so division, aside from their 13 wins the reaming teams had a combined 17 wins, every team at .500 or below.

if the decisions are made via popularity then its safe to say not many like the Seahawks, which is obviously bias, considering theSeahawks made the playoffs 6 times in the last 9 years, not once...

Aros wrote:It's not that I don't get the dollar and cents angle, I do. I get that.

if its all about dollars and cents (network league revenue) how does one explain the 49ers?

SF is about the same size as Seattle so one has to believe their TV ratings are about the same, right?

lets move on to success over the last decade, Seattle obviously wins that so as far as popularity i concerned Seattle should win that hands down

its ludicrous to say the networks base exposure using popularity or success that in turn is based ratings... the networks CREATE the popularity, and the league does all it can to create success, 'cmon man, mid season break the niners get 23 days off with one game in between? is it any wonder they were a lot stronger than the bears? after they played the hawks they get 11 days off then play the cards, another 12 days off then play the rams, then 8 days off to play the bears, scheduling coincidence? the niners didn't play a divisional team until week 8?

if the networks and the league wanted to increase Seattle's ratings they could, in the same manner they are increasing the popularity of the niners, by INCREASING EXPOSURE and sensationalizing (all that hype you hear every time they play), 2 Monday night games, 2 Sunday night games and 1 Thursday night game? seems they are in the process of increasing the niners ratings to me.

and why? because over the last 9 years they made the playoffs once? remember that 13-3 came out of so so division, aside from their 13 wins the reaming teams had a combined 17 wins, every team at .500 or below.

if the decisions are made via popularity then its safe to say not many like the Seahawks, which is obviously bias, considering theSeahawks made the playoffs 6 times in the last 9 years, not once...

Or look at it this way; How much does the average Seattle fan know, or care, about the Buffalo Bills? (Without researching, how many here could name the Bill's defensive backfield? Or their starting O line?)

The color of your heart means more to me, than the color of your skin.

LymonHawk wrote:Or look at it this way; How much does the average Seattle fan know, or care, about the Buffalo Bills? (Without researching, how many here could name the Bill's defensive backfield? Or their starting O line?)

I can name Jarius Byrd and George Wilson because both are pretty good. Couldn't tell you anyone else.Of course I couldn't name the Giants O-Line either, I still expect people to know who the talented players in the NFL are, and we have a bunch of them

When I looked them up I recognised the name Stephon Gilmore as a pretty good CB but no idea how that has translated to the NFL. I do not recognise any other player

I am a Seahawks fan who lives on the East Coast. I live in Redskins country now, but previously Eagles and before than Giants and before that Browns. I am not a young guy okay. I jumped on the Seahawks bandwagon in 2005 and haven't been able to jump off. I tried, but I'm hooked. Now it finally seems to be paying dividends. Ignoring previous years and just focusing on this season, the Seahawks get a lot of media attention from what I see. I see Tate and Sherman on tv quite a bit. Everybody knows about Beast Mode. Pete Carroll is one of the best known coaches in the NFL. Thinking back a few years; it was Holmgren, Alexander and Hasselbeck.

There are 32 teams. I hear a lot about the 49ers in the media. I think I've seen that Harbaugh tv commerical a dozen times now. The team that has gotten the most media attention in my lifetime is definitely the Dallas Cowboys. The Bears and the Packers seem to get a hell of a lot. Do you consider Dallas, Chicago and Green Bay as the East Coast? The Saints are one of the most discussed team this year. I drove from there this summer. Holy ****. That is not the East Coast. The most ignored teams in the NFL are probably the Bills, Browns. A couple of years ago I would've said the Falcons. I talked to a friend of mine aobut ten years ago, a Giants fan who moved from Jersey to Atlanta. I said I never hear about the Falcons. He said nobody gives a crap about them. The local news coverage spends more time on the U of G Bulldogs.

I'm hearing and seeing a lot of media attention for the Oregon Ducks this year and also Stanford. Well, okay also Penn State but let's not go there. Russel Wilson is a fairly big story this year. More so in the past 5 weeks as he has improved. Kurt Warner ranked him in his top 5 quarterrback list last week on NFL Network. Jon Gruden can't shut up about him. It's almost embarassing. The NFL predictor/pundits mention the Seahawks heavily in their recent playoff predictions. The Seahawks are changing in a way that is starting to get them attention. Pete Carroll is good for the Seahawks as a coach, but also does some brash and exciting things. The big dudes in the secondary is a popular story, the resurrection of players and the surprise draft picks doing great. I predict from here forward in to next season the Seahawks will get more attention than 16 of 32 teams at least. Give it time, the Eagles and Jets will start to fade in the background a bit as they start to lost ten games a piece.

The media fluff doesn't bother me when we get overlooked though I do get irritated when we get insulted by so called experts that obviously and blatantly haven't done any research. If they are uninformed and actual experts, they would be much better off playing it safe rather than hyping the the old Seahawks suck mantra. They lose credibility when they do that. A few weeks ago the conversation came up on Mike and Mike about teams with a shot at making the playoffs and when they got to Seattle they literally laughed and then moved on. Now for the last couple of weeks they are talking about our dominant defense and running game and putting us on a pedestal. It just makes them sound like they have no clue and are simply being told how to promote their opinions.

The biggest problem I have with east coast bias is the real things that come from it like the results of a Superbowl before the game is even played. Does anyone believe we would get a fair game against the Giants in an east coats venue if we met them in the Superbowl this year?

Another real thing that is happening is the travel adjustment. Over an 8 day period we will travel over 5000 miles and play back to back 10AM games. East coast teams not only get a pass when they are scheduled against west coast teams but the west coast teams that already travel normally three times as far each year are forced to travel additional miles (like last year we were forced to travel to Pittsburgh) so that those poor east coast teams don't have to. Add in it is much more difficult to play three hours earlier then three hours later and that east coast bias is creating an unfair advantage to the preferred teams.

You wanna promote your east coast teams that is fine but when it is creating actual advantages to the degree of winning or losing Superbowl's or creating a situation that makes it much more difficult for a west coast team to even get to the Superbowl, then it is more than just a bias issue and should be looked at as such.

Common sense would tell you that if your going to flex anyone's schedule it would be the teams already traveling close to 30,000 miles in a season and not the teams that travel closer to 8000 all year. It would also tell you that you should flex west coast team start times to the afternoon venue when traveling east but we don't see that we see what should be the opposite of common sense and when you are discussing seeding in the playoffs that one or two games a year that west coast teams lose because of it again affects where those playoff games are played and again assists the east coast bias. Those are the things that get under my skin.

Once we win a Super Bowl will start becoming relevant on the National scale. Look at the Saints. It took a Hurricane (I mean no disrespect by that) and a Super Bowl to make them become relevant. Before 2005 was NO every talked about? No. Now they're one of the most overhyped teams in the league.

Once we get a Super Bowl, we'll gather a ton of bandwagon fans thus making our National popularity heightened. Factor in we're going the Oregon Ducks route of flashy jerseys, that will attract many more bandwagoners.

It is nice though, when you're outside of the NW, and you see somebody walking down the street with Seahawk gear, you know they're a true fan. If a Cowboy fan saw another dude wearing a Cowboy hat down the street, it'd be like whatever.

oh yea for sure, I'm not suggesting what the NFL or Networks do is right or wrong, its their league and their network to do with as they please, I'm just saying it is a bias, for whatever reason folks just aren't down with the northwest and or the Seahawks when it comes to the majority of NFL content..

its not ratings, success or anything else, its about favoritism and its never bothered me.

I'll be honest though its a horrible business model in any event, the idea would be to build your market share spreading it around the country, lets face it the majority of potential fans that live in Jacksonville fl aren't going to covet the niners no matter how much you sensationalize them or how much exposure they get as a team, they just don't watch football. thats more of an NBA model, more games more players moving around.

the Idea model would be to have each team in the league in the playoffs at least once every 3-4 years and keep it spread around, its counter productive as a business model to always have the same teams in the playoffs year in and year out..

winning teams build a fan base, and they do that by winning not with hype and exposure.

you have 32 teams, 12 teams make the playoffs each season, potentially each team could have a playoff appearance every 3-4 years

what happens at that point is each team gains a larger fan base year after year, MORE fans are waking up on Sunday to watch their teams, specially those that cant afford season tickets or cant make it to games, with more people waking up to watch their team they ultimately get more involved with the NFL and end up watching more football period, they watch every game they can each week.

some teams have horrible fan bases because they never win, so you end up with potential fans just giving up and moving on to something else, 7 of 10 just give up, they don't move on to another regions team because they get exposure and hype, if SF wins the superbowl Jacksonville fans wont jump on the bus simply because.

the NFL and Networks would behoove themselves if they made the game as competitive as possible for each team.